Case Notes

FEDERAL CASES

U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court made it harder to challenge an arbitral agreement in court, holding that if the contract delegates that issue to the arbitrators and a person fails to challenge that clause, the arbitrators decide whether the agreement is “unconscionable.”

The Supreme Court held that the main antifraud provision in the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 applies only to transactions in securities listed on U.S. exchanges and domestic transactions in other securities.

The Supreme Court held that the statutory grounds set forth in the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) for vacating or modifying an arbitration award are exhaustive and thus cannot be supplemented by contract.

Second Circuit

The Second Circuit considered the circumstances under which a federal court may enjoin foreign judicial proceedings that threaten to undermine federal judgments confirming and enforcing foreign arbitral awards.

A court of appeals recently determined that where one party's country of incorporation has opted out of the CISG and the other party's has not, a court must first decide which forum's law applies to determine whether a contract must be in writing.

A district court shed light on the scope of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA), set a new definition for the term “importer,” and clarified the statutory and common-law sources of immunity available to foreign states.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania recently became the first court to stay an action pending the resolution and final report of a World Trade Organization (WTO) proceeding.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has held that the parol-evidence rule doesn't apply to contracts governed by the U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG).

A federal judge in the Southern District of New York disregarded two Indian antisuit injunctions and ruled that a dispute between a Cayman Islands company and an Indian company must proceed to arbitration.

With its decision in Sacirbey v. Guccione, the Second Circuit has concluded a chapter in the lengthy dispute between Muhamed Sacirbey, a U.S. citizen, and the Bosnian government of which he was a former leader.

Magistrate Judge Mary Thynge of the District of Delaware recently rejected a challenge to impose substantive procedural rights on letters of request for international judicial assistance pursuant to the Hague Evidence Convention.

Sixth Circuit

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan has held that a contractual dispute-resolution provision stating that disputes “may” be subject to international arbitration is mandatory, not permissive.

Eighth Circuit

The court of appeals affirmed the district court and held that the doctrine of specialty clause in the United States-Mexico Extradition Treaty was not violated by the use of criminal history in determining the defendant's sentence.

Ninth Circuit

The Ninth Circuit reiterated the law of International Child Abduction under the Hague Convention, stating that poor living conditions and medical care, as well as potential psychological harm, were sufficient to trigger the “grave risk” exception.

The Ninth Circuit held that an arbitrator had a duty to investigate potential conflicts when he accepted employment, during the course of the arbitration, with a company that was then involved in negotiations with a party closely connected to a party to the case.

The defendant appealed his conviction in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida of violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) on the grounds that his extradition from Spain violated the rules of specialty and of dual criminality.

From 1957 until 1977, the Dow Chemical Co. manufactured a chemical compound known as dibromochloropropane (DBCP) and sold it to the Dole Food Co., who used the chemical to cultivate its Central and South American banana plantations.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted the defendant's motion to compel arbitration based on the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) incorporated into the plaintiff's sign-on-employment agreement (SOEA).

The D.C. District Court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss because the LCRA, settlement agreement, and executive order revoked any exception to sovereign immunity, so it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Libyan defendants.

North Dakota

The plaintiff sued the defendants Office of the High Representative (OHR) for Bosnia and Herzegovina and Ambassador Miroslav Lajcak in his official capacity as the High Representative for wrongful termination.

Pennsylvania

The plaintiff, who was injured by a defective aerial fireworks shell on July 4, 1994, commenced an action in 1995 against various parties, including China National Native (Tuhsu) as the purported manufacturer of the shell.

The court held that the department of Commerce’s recent about-face in its calculation method for antidumping investigations was permissible and that it could employ two different approaches to the same calculation for administrative reviews versus investigations.